Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by date for query chromium. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query chromium. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, May 24, 2013

EPA Adds the Riverside Industrial Park in Newark, New Jersey to the Superfund List

Seven Acre Site along the Passaic River Contaminated with PCBs and Volatile Organic Compounds

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has added the Riverside Industrial Park in Newark, New Jersey to the Superfund National Priorities List of the country’s most hazardous waste sites. After a 2009 spill of oily material from the industrial park into the Passaic River, the EPA discovered that chemicals, including benzene, mercury, chromium and arsenic, were improperly stored at the site. The agency took emergency actions to prevent further release of these chemicals into the river. Further investigation showed that soil, ground water and tanks at the Riverside Industrial Park are contaminated with volatile organic compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).


Benzene, mercury, chromium and arsenic are all highly toxic and can cause serious damage to people’s health and the environment. Many volatile organic compounds are known to cause cancer in animals and can cause cancer in people. Polychlorinated biphenyls are chemicals that persist in the environment and can affect the immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems and are potentially cancer-causing.

EPA proposed the site to the Superfund list in September 2012 and encouraged the public to comment during a 60-day public comment period. After considering public comments and receiving the support of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for listing the site, the EPA is putting it on the Superfund list.

“The EPA has kept people out of immediate danger from this contaminated industrial park and can now develop long-term plans to protect the community,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “By adding the site to the Superfund list, the EPA can do the extensive investigation needed to determine the best ways to clean up the contamination and protect public health.”

Since the early 1900s, the Riverside Industrial Park, at 29 Riverside Avenue in Newark, has been used by many businesses, including a paint manufacturer, a packaging company and a chemical warehouse. The site covers approximately seven acres and contains a variety of industrial buildings, some of which are vacant. In 2009, at the request of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the EPA responded to an oil spill on the Passaic River that was eventually traced to the Riverside Avenue site. The state and the city of Newark requested the EPA’s help in assessing the contamination at the site and performing emergency actions to identify and stop the source of the spill. 

The EPA plugged discharge pipes from several buildings and two tanks that were identified as the source of the contamination. In its initial assessment of the site, the EPA also found ten abandoned 12,000 to 15,000 gallon underground storage tanks containing hazardous waste, approximately one hundred 3,000 to 10,000 gallon aboveground storage tanks, two tanks containing oily waste, as well as dozens of 55-gallon drums and smaller containers. These containers held a variety of hazardous industrial waste and solvents. Two underground tanks and most of the other containers were removed by the EPA in 2012. 

The EPA periodically proposes sites to the Superfund list and, after responding to public comments, designates them as final Superfund sites. The Superfund final designation makes them eligible for funds to conduct long-term cleanups. 

The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters should pay for the cleanups, rather than passing the costs to taxpayers. After sites are placed on the Superfund list of the most contaminated waste sites, the EPA searches for parties responsible for the contamination and holds them accountable for the costs of investigations and cleanups. The search for the parties responsible for the contamination at the Riverside Industrial Park site is ongoing.
......
For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.  Click here now to submit a case inquiry.

Read more about the EPA:
Apr 19, 2013
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action officials did not complete planned corrective actions under its Libby Action Plan in a timely manner. This occurred because the scope of the work was larger than originally ...
Feb 21, 2013
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined six Arizona school districts a combined total of $94,575 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violations. More than 15,000 children attend the 25 ...
Mar 07, 2013
Today the PBS NEWSHOUR airs a documentary, EPA Contaminated by Conflict of Interest, on how the chemical Industry is quietly delaying implementation of regulation of Chromium VI. The compound, hexavalent chromium, ...
Mar 14, 2013
Poisoned Water: Chromium IV - What the EPA Hasn't Done. Corporate water pollution in the US is the subject of a current PBS-TV (Public Broadcasting Network) series. In part one of a two-part series, PBS NewsHour Science ...

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Poisoned Water: Chromium IV - What the EPA Hasn't Done


Corporate water pollution in the US is the subject of a current PBS-TV (Public Broadcasting Network) series.

In part one of a two-part series, PBS NewsHour Science Correspondent Miles O'Brien travels to Hinkley, CA -- the town whose multi-million dollar settlement for groundwater contamination was featured in the movie "Erin Brockovich." Now, almost 30 years later, O'Brien explores the reasons why the groundwater in Hinkley still has dangerous levels of the chemical chromium and its link to cancer.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: FDA Issues a Alert on Potential Risks

The US FDA has issued an alert concerning Metal-on-metal hip implants consist of a ball, stem and shell, all made from cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloys. 
There are two types of metal-on-metal hip implants:
  • Traditional total hip replacement systems
  • Resurfacing hip systems
Purpose: In February 2011, the FDA launched a metal-on-metal hip implant webpage. The FDA is providing updated safety information and recommendations to patients and health care providers.  This new information is based on the FDA’s current assessment of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the benefits and risks, the evaluation of the published literature, and the results of the June 2012 Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Advisory Panel meeting.

Summary of Problem and Scope:
Metal-on-metal hip implants have unique risks in addition to the general risks of all hip implants.
In metal-on-metal hip implants, the metal ball and the metal cup slide against each other during walking or running. Metal can also be released from other parts of the implant where two implant components connect.  Metal release will cause some tiny metal particles to wear off of the device around the implant, which may cause damage to bone and/or soft tissue surrounding the implant and joint. This is sometimes referred to as an “adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR)” or an “adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD).”
Soft tissue damage may lead to pain, implant loosening, device failure and the need for revision surgery (a surgical procedure where the implant is removed and another is put in its place). Some of the metal ions released will enter the bloodstream and travel to other parts of the body, where they may cause symptoms or illnesses elsewhere in the body (systemic reactions).
Presently, the FDA does not have enough scientific data to specify the concentration of metal ions in a patient’s body or blood necessary to produce adverse systemic effects.  In addition, the reaction seems to be specific to individual patients, with different patients having different reactions to the metal wear particles.
Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons:
Before Surgery
  • Select a metal-on-metal hip implant for your patient only after determining that the benefit-risk profile of using a metal-on-metal hip implant outweighs that of using an alternative hip system (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic or ceramic-on-metal).  Factors to consider include the patient’s age, sex, weight, diagnosis, and activity level.
    • Note that a 2012 FDA advisory panel of experts identified young males with larger femoral heads as the best candidates for hip resurfacing systems. 
  • Inform patients about the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the risk that the hip implant may need to be replaced. Also discuss the patient’s expectations and review the potential complications of surgery with a metal-on-metal hip implant.
  • Pay close attention to patient populations for which metal-on-metal hip systems are contraindicated.  Be aware of the risk factors that may predispose a device to excess wear and early failure. 
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons before, during and immediately following metal-on-metal hip replacement surgery can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Patient Follow-Up
  • Follow-up of asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, including physical examinations and routine radiographs, should occur periodically (typically every 1 to 2 years).  If the hip is functioning properly, the FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely perform additional soft tissue imaging or assess metal ion levels in the blood.
  • Be aware that there are certain patients who are at risk for increased device wear and/or adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) and should be followed more closely. They may include:
    • Patients with bilateral implants
    • Patients with resurfacing systems with small femoral heads (44mm or smaller)
    • Female patients
    • Patients receiving high doses of corticosteroids
    • Patients with evidence of renal insufficiency
    • Patients with suppressed immune systems
    • Patients with suboptimal alignment of device components
    • Patients with suspected metal sensitivity (e.g. cobalt, chromium, nickel)
    • Patients who are severely overweight
    • Patients with high levels of physical activity.
  • Pay close attention to signs and symptoms that may be associated with metal-on-metal hip implants. Please see the website for a list of common ALTRs and systemic symptoms/complications.
  • Conduct a thorough evaluation if a patient with a metal-on-metal hip experiences local symptoms such as pain or swelling at or near the hip, a change in walking ability or a noise from the hip joint more than three months after metal-on-metal hip implant surgery. 
  • Follow symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants at least every 6 months.
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for patient follow-up can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
For additional information regarding soft tissue imaging or assessing metal ion levels, please review the FDA’s recommendations below.
Imaging
For some symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, additional diagnostic imaging is required to assess and diagnose soft tissue findings surrounding the implant.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of using different types of diagnostic imaging procedures (e.g. MRI with metal artifact reduction, CT, or ultrasound) as well as the availability of specialized radiology expertise when determining the most appropriate imaging modality for each patient.
If you determine that an MRI of a metal-on-metal hip implant patient is appropriate, the FDA recommends the following:
  • Consult with the radiologist to evaluate the benefits and risks of utilizing MRI with metal artifact reduction;
  • Review the available device-specific labeling from manufacturers for MRI Conditions; and
  • Inform the MRI site that the patient has a metal-on-metal hip implant.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations about imaging a patient with a metal-on-metal hip implant, please see Imaging Evaluation.
Assessing Metal Ion Levels
Some patients with a metal-on-metal hip implant may have elevated metal ion levels (e.g. cobalt and/or chromium) in their bloodstream.  Several factors can impact the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical interpretation of metal ion test results.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • The FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely check metal ion levels in the blood if the orthopaedic surgeon feels the hip is functioning properly and the patient is asymptomatic.
  • Patients with metal-on-metal hip implants who develop any symptoms or physical findings that indicate their device may not be functioning properly, should be considered for metal ion testing.  
  • If measuring metal ions, consider obtaining and following serial measurements (using the same sample type, the same measurement method, and preferably the same laboratory) in determining metal ion levels in symptomatic patients.
  • At this time, the FDA is not recommending a specific metal ion level as a trigger for revision or other medical intervention.  The metal ion concentration values, including increases in metal ion levels over time, should be considered in addition to the overall clinical scenario including symptoms, physical findings, and other diagnostic results when determining further actions.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations on metal ion test methods, selecting a test lab and interpreting test results, please see Metal Ion Testing.
Device Revision
The decision to revise a metal-on-metal hip implant should be made in response to the overall clinical scenario. In case of adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR), revision of a metal-on-metal hip implant may have a worse prognosis than revision of other types of bearing surfaces.
In selecting components for revision:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of all bearing surfaces for each patient.
  • Check the specific device labeling for compatibility of device components.
  • If a patient is suspected to have developed metal sensitivity, carefully select the materials of the revision components (potentially avoiding materials with nickel or chromium). 
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations on device revisions, which includes our recommendation for a retrieval analysis of every failed metal-on-metal hip implant.
Summary of FDA Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons
Symptomatic PatientsAsymptomatic Patients
Regular Clinical Evaluation At least every six months Typically at least once every 1 to 2 years
Soft Tissue Imaging Consider the benefits and risks of MRI, CT and ultrasound for each patient. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
Metal Ion Testing Consider monitoring serial metal ion levels.  Currently, the most reliable test results are available for cobalt in EDTA-anticoagulated blood*.  In repeat tests, use same sample type, measurement method and preferably the same laboratory. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
*For chromium testing, a validated method that resolves potential interferences must be used.  Please reviewFDA’s recommendations for chromium testing.
Recommendations for Health Care Providers:
Metal-on-metal implant patients with systemic symptoms are more likely to visit their primary care practitioner than their orthopaedic surgeon, which makes it important for all health care providers to be aware of metal ion adverse events that may occur in metal-on-metal hip implant patients. Based on case reports, these events may include:
  • General hypersensitivity reaction (skin rash)
  • Cardiomyopathy
  • Neurological changes including sensory changes (auditory, or visual impairments)
  • Psychological status change (including depression)
  • Renal function impairment
  • Thyroid dysfunction (including neck discomfort, fatigue, weight gain or feeling cold.
Patients with systemic findings that are thought to be related to a metal-on-metal hip implant should be advised to follow-up with his or her orthopaedic surgeon to determine the appropriate course of action.
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations to Health Care Professionals.
Recommendations for Patients Considering Hip Implants:
  • Be aware that every hip implant has benefits and risks.
  • Discuss your options for hip surgery with your surgeon. 
A list of some questions to ask your orthopaedic surgeon can be found in Patients Considering a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
Recommendations for Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants:
  • If you are not having any symptoms and your orthopaedic surgeon believes your implant is functioning appropriately, you should continue to routinely follow-up with the surgeon every 1 to 2 years.
  • If you develop new or worsening problems such as pain, swelling, numbness, noise (popping, grinding, clicking or squeaking of your hip), and/or change in your ability to walk, contact your orthopaedic surgeon right away. 
  • If you experience changes in your general health, including new or worsening symptoms outside your hip, let your physician know you have a metal-on-metal hip implant.
Additional information for patients with a metal-on-metal hip can be found in Patients who have a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
FDA Activities:
The FDA is committed to providing reliable safety recommendations to patients and health care providers about the utilization of these devices.  Recent activities include:
  1. On May 6, 2011, the FDA instructed manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement (THR) systems to conduct postmarket surveillance study of these devices.  Five manufacturers currently market metal-on-metal hip implants in the U.S. and all five have approved postmarket surveillance study plans.  Data from these studies will provide patients and health care providers with additional information about the safety profiles of the implants, including the effect of metal ion concentrations in the bloodstream.
  2. On June 27-28, 2012, the FDA convened the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee to seek expert scientific and clinical opinion on the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip systems. Information from this panel meeting has helped form these recommendations.
  3. On January 17, 2013 the FDA issued a proposed order requiring manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems to submit premarket approval (PMA) applications.  Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were evaluated under the 510(k) premarket notification program. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were marketed in the U.S. prior to 1976 legislation that gave the agency premarket authority over medical devices. As “preamendment devices,” they were designated as Class III (higher risk) devices but were regulated under the 510(k) premarket notification program.
Additional information on FDA ongoing activities are provided in FDA’s Role and Activities.
Other Resources:
For additional resources, see Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: Other Resources.
Reporting Problems to the FDA:
Prompt reporting of adverse events can help the FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical devices. If you suspect a problem with a metal-on-metal device, we encourage you to file a voluntary report through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program. Health care personnel employed by facilities that are subject to the FDA's user facility reporting requirements should follow the reporting procedures established by their facilities. Device manufacturers must comply with the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulations.

Reports to the FDA about adverse events related to metal-on-metal hip systems include, but are not limited to: pain, malposition, adverse local tissue reaction, metallosis, hypersensitivity (allergy), loosening, and dislocation.
To help he FDA learn as much as possible about the adverse events associated with metal-on-metal hip implants, please include the following information in your reports, if available:
  • Date of implantation
  • Date of implant removal (if applicable)
  • Clinical cause for revision (if available)
  • System components affected by the adverse event.
Read more about Hip Implants and Workers' Compensation
May 16, 2011
"The FDA is continuing to gather and review all available information about currently marketed metal-on-metal hip systems, including information related to adverse events that may be associated with increase levels of cobalt ...
Aug 27, 2010
Johnson and Johnson has recalled 2 Hip Implants because of failure. The two implants were made by the DePuy Orthopaedics unit of Johnson and Johnson. The decision to withdrawn the products was based upon the fact ...
Jul 10, 2012
Under Administrative Code section 80.32(3), a “total hip prosthesis” carries a minimum 40% PPD. Based on previous Wisconsin Court and LIRC decisions, generally any subsequent invasive surgery resulting from the same ...
Dec 17, 2010
The workers' compensation insurance system is about to be the initial payor for joint replacement surgery and for the complications of defective artificial hip joint damage that were said to be inadequately tested because of a ...

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Mercury to be Removed by US EPA From Pompton River in NJ

The US EPA has announce that mercury, a hazardous substance, that was dischardged by EI DuPont in the Pompton River in NJ will be removed. For decades it has been known that mercury exposure causes illness and injury to workers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced its plan to remove mercury contamination from the sediment of the Acid Brook Delta of Pompton Lake in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey to levels that meet stringent standards to protect people’s health and the environment. The plan will go into effect as a modification of a permit, which legally requires the E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. to fund and perform the work. Under the permit modification, the EPA will require DuPont to dredge at least 100,000 cubic yards of mercury contaminated sediment from the bottom of a 40-acre area of Pompton Lake and remove at least 7,800 cubic yards of contaminated soil from a shoreline area of the lake affected by DuPont’s past discharges. All of the sediment and soil will be sent to a licensed disposal facility.

Mercury in the sediment and soil can build up in the tissue of fish and other wildlife and pose a threat to people who eat them. Exposure to mercury can damage people’s nervous systems and harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and immune systems.

“The removal of mercury-contaminated sediment from Pompton Lake is a major step toward the recovery of the lake and the protection of people’s health,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “The expanded dredging and other revisions in the final cleanup plan reflect the EPA’s commitment to protecting public health and improving environmental quality in Pompton Lakes.”

In November 2011, the EPA proposed a preliminary permit modification to remove contaminated sediment from the bottom of Pompton Lake and encouraged the public to comment on it. A public hearing on the proposed permit modification was held in January 2012. The final permit modification announced today incorporates changes that were made in response to comments from the public and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and additional technical information received from DuPont after the proposed permit modification was issued. A public meeting to discuss the permit modification for the Acid Brook Delta of Pompton Lakes will be held on January 15, 2013.

Under the final permit modification, the area of sediment that will be removed has been expanded by approximately 35% and sediment sampling is required to identify additional areas of the lake that may require the removal of mercury-contaminated sediment. In addition, DuPont is required to implement long-term monitoring of the effectiveness of the dredging, restore the soil between Lakeside Avenue and the edge of the lake, and perform an ecological risk assessment to determine whether additional action may be needed in the future. DuPont will be required to develop work plans for these requirements, which must be submitted to the EPA for approval. The cleanup will be financed and conducted by DuPont with EPA oversight.

The E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. operated the Pompton Lakes Works facility, located at 2000 Cannonball Road, from 1902 to April 1994. Products manufactured at the facility included explosive powder containing mercury and lead, detonating fuses, electric blasting caps, metal wires and aluminum and copper shells. The manufacturing operations and waste management practices contaminated soil, sediment and ground water both on and off-site. Lead and mercury from its operations were released into Acid Brook, which flows through the eastern part of the facility and discharges into the Acid Brook Delta of Pompton Lake. DuPont’s operations also contaminated the ground water with chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, cis 1,2-dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride.

The cleanup of the Acid Brook Delta requires a modification of the permit under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The final permit modification will become effective on February 4, 2013 pending any requests for appeal submitted prior to that date.

Plans to clean up the remaining areas of contamination will be proposed through future permit modifications after ongoing investigations by DuPont have been completed and reviewed by the EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Opportunities for public participation will continue to be provided through regular updates, public notices and public meetings.

The permit modification and relevant documents are available at the EPA’s project website at:http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/dupont_pompton/index.html.

The public also can review documents related to the permit modification and cleanup at:
Pompton Lakes Public Library
333 Wanaque Avenue, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey
(973) 835-0482
http://www.pomptonlakeslibrary.org/index.htm


....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping injured workers and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). 

Read more about "Mercury" and workers' compensation
Nov 26, 2012
Irving J. Selikoff Center for Occupational & Environmental Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine has released a guide to treatment for elemental mercury ((the pure form of the metal, when it is not combined with other ...
Mar 05, 2010
For example, nearly 70 years ago, on December 1, 1941, the U.S. Public Health Service ended mercury's use by hat manufacturers in 26 states through mutual agreements. The kinds of conditions that put hat-makers and ...
May 09, 2012
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will discuss plans to address high levels of contaminants, including PCBs, mercury and dioxin, which are present in Passaic River mud adjacent to Riverside Park in Lyndhurst, New ...
Aug 09, 2012
They concluded that there was enough evidence of a link to classify it as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” placing it in the same category as lead and mercury. The long-awaited Interphone study, a major inquiry into the ...

Saturday, December 1, 2012

US NTSB Initiates Investigation of NJ Toxic Train Derailment

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has now commenced an investigation of the train accident in Paulsboro, New Jersey where a moveable bridge collapsed and the 84 car train, with 4 cars of toxic substance crashed into a creek spilling hazardous vinyl chloride. 
The NTSB is a Federal agency charged with accident investigation. It has begun to collect data, both human and mechanical, to determine the cause of the investigation. A team of investigators has from Washington DC and other areas of the country has now appeared on the scene to commence the investigation. After conclusion of the investigation and analysis as to the its cause, the NTSB will issue
recommendations to prevent further similar accidents.

The same bridge was had collapsed in 2009, when a train pulling coal cars came off its tracks after the railroad bridge over the Mantua Creek collapsed and sent 16 cars into the water. The bridge was “an old structure,” and its original “A” frame dated back to 1873. The train has two locomotives and 83 freight cars.

One tanker containing 25,000 gallons of vinyl chloride. It was breached in the accident. The gas leaked into the air, while the rest turned into a solid and settled into the bottom of the tanker. Elevated levels of vinyl chloride were detected in a 12 block radius and over 500 people were evacuated last night. Approximately 70people have been treated at the local hospital. No fatalities have yet to be reported.

Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, human carcinogen.


....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping vinyl chloride victims and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson).  

Read more about "vinyl chloride"


Jan 29, 2010
The 5 substances that TSCA mandates regulations for are all known carcinogens: Asbestos, Hexavalent Chromium, Vinyl Chloride, Trichloethylene, Methyene Chloride and Dicloromethene. Since 1976 chronic and terminal ...
Aug 11, 2007
This case involved exposure to poly vinyl chloride at a Pantasote, a Paterson NJ plant, causing disease to former workers which is characteristic of Raynaud's phenomenon ( fingers blanch and numbnessand discomfort are ...
Feb 20, 2008
Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. Secondhand smoke has ...

Friday, November 30, 2012

Train Carrying Deadly PVC Crashes In NJ Sickens Workers / Residents

A train carrying deadly Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) crashed in NJ this morning when a bridge it was traveling on collapsed. The train containing highly toxic cargo crashed while crossing a creek near the Delaware River. 

It has been reported that at least 71 people are being treated for respiratory distress and residents have been ordered to remain indoors. The train remains dangling from the collapsed bridge and and chemicals continue to leak into the creek.

Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, human carcinogen.

Acute Effects: Acute exposure of humans to high levels of vinyl chloride via inhalation in humans has resulted in effects on the CNS, such as dizziness, drowsiness, headaches, and giddiness. Vinyl chloride is reported to be slightly irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract in humans. Acute exposure to extremely high levels of vinyl chloride has caused loss of consciousness, lung and kidney irritation, and inhibition of blood clotting in humans and cardiac arrhythmias in animals. Tests involving acute exposure of mice have shown vinyl chloride to have high acute toxicity from inhalation exposure.

Chronic Effects(Noncancer): Liver damage may result in humans from chronic exposure to vinyl chloride, through both inhalation and oral exposure. A small percentage of individuals occupationally exposed to high levels of vinyl chloride in air have developed a set of symptoms termed “vinyl chloride disease,” which is characterized by Raynaud’s phenomenon (fingers blanch and numbness and discomfort are experienced upon exposure to the cold), changes in the bones at the end of the fingers, joint and muscle pain, and scleroderma-like skin changes (thickening of the skin, decreased elasticity, and slight edema). CNS effects (including dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, visual and/or hearing disturbances, memory loss, and sleep disturbances) as well as peripheral nervous system symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, tingling, numbness, weakness, and pain in fingers) have also been reported in workers exposed to vinyl chloride. Animal studies have reported effects on the liver, kidney, and CNS from chronic exposure to vinyl chloride. EPA has established a Reference Concentration (RfC) of 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter, and a Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.003 milligrams per kilogram per day for vinyl chloride. Please see IRIS for current information.

Reproductive/Developmental Effects: Several case reports suggest that male sexual performance may be affected by vinyl chloride. However, these studies are limited by lack of quantitative exposure information and possible co-occurring exposure to other chemicals. Several epidemiological studies have reported an association between vinyl chloride exposure in pregnant women and an increased incidence of birth defects, while other studies have not reported similar findings. Epidemiological studies have suggested an association between men occupationally exposed to vinyl chloride and miscarriages in their wives’ pregnancies although other studies have not supported these findings. Testicular damage and decreased male fertility have been reported in rats exposed to low levels for up to 12 months. Animal studies have reported decreased fetal weight and birth defects at levels that are also toxic to maternal animals in the offspring of rats exposed to vinyl chloride through inhalation.

Cancer Risk: Inhaled vinyl chloride has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer (angiosarcoma of the liver) in humans. Animal studies have shown that vinyl chloride, via inhalation, increases the incidence of angiosarcoma of the liver and cancer of the liver. Several rat studies show a pronounced early-life susceptibility to the carcinogenic effect of vinyl chloride, i.e., early exposures are associated with higher liver cancer incidence than similar or much longer exposures that occur after maturity. EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, human carcinogen. EPA uses mathematical models, based on animal studies, to estimate the probability of a person developing cancer from breathing air containing a specified concentration of a chemical.

EPA has calculated an inhalation unit risk estimate of 8.8 × 10-6 (µg/m3)-1 for lifetime exposure to vinyl chloride.


....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ, helping vinyl chloride victims and their families for over 4 decades, is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson).  

Read more about "vinyl chloride"


Jan 29, 2010
The 5 substances that TSCA mandates regulations for are all known carcinogens: Asbestos, Hexavalent Chromium, Vinyl Chloride, Trichloethylene, Methyene Chloride and Dicloromethene. Since 1976 chronic and terminal ...
Aug 11, 2007
This case involved exposure to poly vinyl chloride at a Pantasote, a Paterson NJ plant, causing disease to former workers which is characteristic of Raynaud's phenomenon ( fingers blanch and numbnessand discomfort are ...
Feb 20, 2008
Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. Secondhand smoke has ...

Friday, October 26, 2012

When Is The Child of an Infertile Woman a Dependent

The child of an infertile woman has yet another hurtle of proof to establish dependency status in a workers' compensation as the NJ Supreme Court decided that a formal adoption is necessary for an infertile woman to be designated as the legal mother of her husband’s biological child born to a gestational carrier.

Statutory dependency status in workers' compensation is confirmed by law to designated individuals. Those who are not specifically enumerated by the Workers' Compensation Act, ie. a non-biological child, may be considered a dependent after formally establishing dependency status. N.J.S.A. 34:15-13. Legal adopt will confer statutory status.

"Absent adoption, the Act does not recognize an infertile wife as the legal mother of her husband’s biological child born to a gestational carrier. The Act does not violate the right to equal protection under Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution because the distinctions drawn between an infertile husband and an infertile wife are grounded in actual reproductive and biological differences, which the Legislature may consider in defining alternative means of creating parenthood. "
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAGE OF A CHILD BY T.J.S. AND A.L.S., h/w (Decided October 24, 2012 (NJ 2012).

Also read The Jurist "New Jersey Supreme Court upholds surrogacy law"

Read more about "dependency benefits"
Jun 09, 2008
The NJ Supreme Court Declares Dependency Benefit Increases are Not to Be Retroactively Applied. The NJ Supreme Court reversed a ruling of the Appellate Division and declared the Legislature's 2004 amendment to the ...
Apr 20, 2009
Court Awards Dependency Benefits to Police Officer Who Committed Suicide. The dependents of a deceased police officer will receive benefits as a result of the officer's work-related suicide related to stress. Wilde v Township ...
Mar 21, 2012
The US Supreme Court, in a matter that may have widespread impact on workers' compensation dependency benefits, heard oral arguments in Astrue v Capato concerning whether a child conceived after the death of a ...
Oct 01, 2010
The decision may have a sweeping national impact on workers' compensation dependency claims, as they are also separate and distinct actions against an employer. Bradley v, Sebelius, 621 F. 3d 1330, 2010 WL 3769132 ...